Obama v. McCain (and Giuliani) on Guantanamo

By TChris, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:08:31 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

John McCain must worry that he's not capable of inspiring fear as effectively as other Republicans. How else do you explain his enlistment of Rudy Giuliani to help him condemn the Supreme Court decision that restored the right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees?

In response to comments Barack Obama has made in support of the Supreme Court's ruling, the McCain campaign

sent around a statement from Mayor Rudy Giuliani. “Throughout this campaign, I have been very concerned that the Democrats want to take a step back to the failed policies that treated terrorism solely as a law enforcement matter rather than a clear and present danger,” Giuliani writes. “Barack Obama appears to believe that terrorists should be treated like criminals - a belief that underscores his fundamental lack of judgment regarding our national security and judgment necessary to protect the American people."

Neither McCain nor Giuliani appear to understand that habeas corpus and due process are "necessary to protect the American people." Obama does. He corrected the McCain camp's misinformation about the role that habeas corpus plays in our judicial system. [more ...]

“If [the McCain campaign] wanted to have a serious conversation about it then they would know for example that the issue of Habeas Corpus is not designed to free prisoners,” Obama told reporters Tuesday. “What it’s designed to do is make sure that prisoners who are being held have at least one shot to say, “I’m being held wrongly.”

National security does not depend upon Republican unwillingness to face scrutiny or to acknowledge the possibility of mistake.

“The reason we set up Guantanamo is because the administration wanted to set up a black hole where there was no accountability whatsoever,” said Obama, flying back to Washington Tuesday for some time off the campaign trail. “The Supreme Court has now said you can’t do that. And as a consequence, the whole purpose of Guantanamo is defeated.”

Why are Republicans so frightened of the Constitution?

< Pellicano Seeks New Trial | Holding Democrats To Account >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama v. McCain (and Giuliani) on Guantanamo | 60 comments (60 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I thought McCain... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by OrangeFur on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:41:52 PM EST

... wanted to close Guantanamo?

I also agree with Ga6th-- most voters don't really care about the rights of detainees. It should be a big issue, but it won't be, in part because Democrats are afraid of it. I doubt very much that Obama will run any commercials touting his position on this issue.

Yes, McCain led his comment on (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by FemB4dem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:22:36 PM EST

Boumediene by reiterating he would close Guantanamo down, thus nicely separating himself from Bush.

Although I agree with the decision myself, as a matter of politics, I suspect McCain will use it as a club against Obama. Non-lawyers don't have the patience for the niceties of habeas jurisprudence, and whether Guantanamo is more like Scotland or Hanover. The soundbites are all in Scalia's dissent:

"America is at war with radical Islamists."

"On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland ... our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy ... last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed."

"The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Scalia dissent at 2.

These are not Obama's strongest areas, they are McCain's. If this becomes a national security/terrorism election, Obama stands no chance.


Torturing innocent people (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by MKS on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:01:50 AM EST

is something non-lawyers can understand.....

And, you can't be sure about guilt or innocence until some type of fair hearing or trial is conducted.


: Even torturing guilty people (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Calvados on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 06:32:34 AM EST

is something non-lawyers should understand and condemn. I agree, though, that people could understand the idea of being held in captivity for no good reason if it were presented clearly.

i really disagree (1.00 / 1) (#47)
by tben on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:43:43 PM EST

I know you are speaking the conventional wisdom, but times have changed. McCain has been a long-term supporter of a party, and a philosphy that is hugely unpoular with the American people.

The people DO NOT trust the Republicans on national security like they used to. How could they? After getting us into this war which a strong majority beleives is a mistake - the Republican presumption of competence in this area is demolished.

Of course it remains to be seen whether any Dem can take advantage of that situation. Obama being the Dem, of course, and thank goodness for that. After her vote for the war, Hillary would have been at a fatal disadvantage on these issues. McCain would have argued that he and Hillary were in the same position at the beginning, and he had the better critiques along the way.

No, Obama is the only Dem who can, maybe, take advantage of the Republican/neocon failure and sell a Democratic approach. We'll see whether or not he succeeds.


People also keep repeating that McCain (1.00 / 1) (#56)
by Grace on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:39:58 PM EST

favors torture. If you've read anything about his past, he gave false information due to torture as a POW so I'm sure he doesn't really support torture. He knows torture leads to getting false information.

I really think McCain is a RINO which is one of the things the conservatives hate about him.


: McCain... (5.00 / 3) (#67)
by Alec82 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 04:27:27 AM EST

Doesn't really support torture.
Doesn't really support suspension of habeas corpus.
Doesn't really support the war in Iraq.
Isn't really opposed to women having the right to choose.
Isn't really opposed to gay rights.
Didn't really support the Bush administration.
Doesn't really not have a grasp on economics.
Doesn't really support social security privatization.
If I have to peel through those kind of layers to get to the "real" McCain, who is he? He must be the unique candidate who, despite all that he says he is for, and votes for, is really against it.
WTF?

Kind of.... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by lentinel on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:06:04 PM EST

"'Neither McCain nor Giuliani appear to understand that habeas corpus and due process are 'necessary to protect the American people.' Obama does."

The only thing is ... that dang patriot act.

I don't think you can have any deep respect for habeas corpus and due process and then go ahead and vote for that thing.

So you supported Kucinich during the primaries? (5.00 / 0) (#19)
by jtaylorr on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:24:02 PM EST

If not, it's amazingly hypocritical to attack Obama, when every other candidate also voted to authorize or re-authorize the Patriot Act.


Candidate.... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by lentinel on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:45:34 PM EST

I did support Kucinich.

He more closely resembles a democrat than the rest of the field.
He was ignored the the mainstream press and marginalized by the left.

As for the Patriot Act...

10 Senators voted against it - including Feingold and Byrd.
So - it is possible to adhere to principle when pressured to do otherwise.


He might resemble (none / 0) (#33)
by pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:54:21 PM EST

a dem, but he's an unappealing one to voters and kingmakers.


That is true, (none / 0) (#34)
by jtaylorr on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:02:56 PM EST

but Russ was the only one to vote against the initial authorization. I don't think Byrd should be given a pass just because he suddenly decided he should support civil liberties.
But I made my initial comment because, judging from other comments you've made, I assumed you supported Hillary Clinton, whose record is worse than Obama's on civil liberties (though, admittedly, neither has a very stellar record on this issue.)


: Obama's not running against Clinton in the general (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:11:00 PM EST

He's the Presumptive Dem nominee for President and should immediately be prepared to be hit with his record relating to this. (cf my post upstream)
Until his nomination is certified in August, justifying his statements, record or actions with the perpetual go-to complaint about Clinton will reflect badly on him and his campaign.

Did you support (none / 0) (#20)
by pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:27:24 PM EST

Kucinich's run for the presidency?


Yes. (none / 0) (#23)
by jtaylorr on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:35:11 PM EST

I even donated to him campaign.
But I'm not dumb, I knew the media would never give him a chance.
My realistic choice was Edwards.


You mean (none / 0) (#24)
by pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:36:06 PM EST

your unrealistic choice.


Well... (none / 0) (#26)
by jtaylorr on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:43:14 PM EST

the same could have been said about Obama at the beginning of all this, and we see how that turned out.
I had hopes after Iowa but after South Carolina passed by, I knew it was over for him.


Look, (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:49:32 PM EST

I was an Edwards supporter. But once he was out, I listened to both Obama and Hillary, instead of listening to hype.

She soared. He was a constant disappointment.

Half the American primary voters agree with me.


: Cool. Half agree with me. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by jtaylorr on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:09:21 PM EST

I don't understand what this argument is about.
I was simply trying to make a point that, on the Patriot Act, (and civil liberties in general) Obama is just as bad (or good - depends on how you look at it) as Hillary.

: I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:28:18 PM EST

I was initially an Edwards supporter. I became disillusioned when I saw Edwards ganging up with Obama during the last debate. Very distasteful. Hillary won me over for good with her mastery of issues, tenacity, and positions.

Good for you (none / 0) (#72)
by Claw on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:15:52 AM EST

He's not afraid to tell the truth, and he's one of the nicest guys in the world. I'd support Kucinich over Obama...but he looks funny and has real, progressive liberal views that pretty much bar him from getting close to POTUS.


Doing Away With Habeas Corpus (5.00 / 5) (#12)
by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:09:09 PM EST

is scary and could not have been accomplished without the help of Democrats in Congress. Giving away 4th amendment rights by eliminating the protections of FISA was scary and the Democrats did little or nothing to stop the government from illegally spying on its citizens. Letting the president establish the precedent that "The President Is Above The Law" was really scary but according to Obama Bush did nothing that warranted impeachment and the Democrats were too busy doing other things (what exactly I'm not sure) to do more than grandstand at hearings and write sternly written letters.

Lacking a little trust that we will receive anything other than words from Obama and the Democratic Congress on these issues.

: No FISA capitulation without Pelosi (none / 0) (#64)
by magnetics on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:28:53 AM EST

on board, and my strong impression is that she is a strong Obama partisan.
Since he is the presumptive nominee, I don't see a bright future for the 4th or 5th amendments.

Would Giuliani Care To Elaborate (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by The Maven on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:20:38 PM EST

on exactly why believing "that terrorists should be treated like criminals" is somehow not enough? Last time I checked, Rudy was still oh-so-proud of his terrorism-related work from when he was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, in which he himself treated terrorists like criminals.

I always thought that the typical right-wing objection was to those who claimed captured terrorists to be the moral equivalent of political prisoners, and that the law and order types wanted those terrorists to be viewed as mere thugs and criminals. Now, apparently, we need to push them down into a whole new class of subhumans, even before they are tried and convicted!

I guess the theory is that somewhere a warlord or clan leader was paid a bounty for turning a person in as a suspected terrorist, therefore that's all the proof anyone anywhere would ever need. Well, I feel a whole lot better knowing that nothing could ever possibly go wrong in such a scenario!

McCain/Giulaini (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by squeaky on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:27:42 PM EST

Against Obama/Hillary. That is a good one. I think we would win with that.

Because the Constitution is fundamentally against monarchy, The desire for permanent republican rule is a pro monarchy argument. The Constitution thwarts their evil desires.

Giuliani writes. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by Edger on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:07:26 PM EST

"Barack Obama appears to believe that terrorists should be treated like criminals...

Ahem.

I'd be pretty concerned if I were Rudy, too. Or George. Or Dick.

: Wasn't that NIxon's line? (none / 0) (#36)
by MarkL on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:08:33 PM EST

..decrying the "criminalization of terrorism"?

What Obama ought to be doing, where the (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by Anne on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:10:07 PM EST

conversation needs to be directed, is drawing a line for the American people that connects what is being allowed with respect to the detainees, to what that makes it possible - or at least easier - to do to the Average Joe who thinks he's just minding his business, living his life.

For most people, "detainees" are some abstract, vaguely sinister collection of foreigners who are believed to be in detention for some good reason. Most people have no idea that some of these detainees have never been told why they are in detention.

The whole various collection of Acts and other legislation, combined with executive orders and signing statements and end-runs around substantive oversight have placed us all closer to being snatched off the street, never to be seen or heard from again, than your average person would ever imagine. For most people, the government is still the great protector and steward of rights and privileges and they have no idea how much has been chipped away from the very foundations of the democracy by the Bush administration.

There is still this belief that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear," but too many people fail to understand that it will not be their own interpretation of what is "wrong" that will protect them.

The Democrats have squandered opportunity after opportunity to educate the American people to the fact that there is a great deal more at stake than just a possible terrorist attack on the nation; really, it just kills me that they have just whiffed on this issue over and over and over.

Obama has the opportunity to make this real, to "connect the dots" for people, and if he can do that, he can peel away the thin veneer of national security credibility that McCain will otherwise be able to capitalize on.

The FISA bill is another such opportunity - and while Obama has the microphone and the utter adoration of the media, he should lead on it. Lead. Be presidential. Invoke his constitutional law background and put it to the best use it's seen in years.

Come on - someone has to lead!

oddly enough, (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by cpinva on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:37:30 AM EST

i was always under the (apparently foolish) impression that acts of terrorism were criminal. you can't really have it both ways, and not be laughed at by the rest of the world: terrorists are either criminals, and should be tried as such in the courts, or they are soldiers, and subject to treatment as POW's under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

the last time i checked, congress hadn't declared war on anyone lately, and terrorist acts would fall under the aegis of regular criminal law, the patriot act notwithstanding.

this is the trap the bush administration has set for its successor's: how to get us back to where we were, before the nutjobs took charge?

Frankly (4.20 / 5) (#2)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:20:14 PM EST

McCain isn't as scary as Giuliani and some of the other republicans and that's why the Obama campaign's attempt at sledgehammer unity hasn't been working.

Anyway, Obama's dry statements about terrorism don't really pass the gut check with a lot of voters. The whole problem is that we're trying to talk about this stuff and it wasn't set up by congress. Congress should have spent the last two years talking about these types of things. Pelosi has pretty much justified everything the GOP has been saying by continually caving to Bush and giving him what he wants.

Isn't as scary? (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by neoliberal on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:26:32 PM EST

He wants to do away with habeas corpus. That's terrifying to me.


For detainees (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:38:35 PM EST

That's where the problem comes in. You have to argue it from the standpoint of american citizens for voters to care.


: that is right (none / 0) (#40)
by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:23:44 PM EST

The ordinary american citizen does not see the detainees as having the same rights. Heck, most do not even like American defendants having habeas rights. Everyone gets to vote, not just the progressive/academics/professionals.

Not scary... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Alec82 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:29:07 PM EST

...to you. I think most lawyers probably find him terrifying.

While I understand your concerted effort at tearing in on Obama, the question of habeas was a very easy one. I am starting to take McCain at his word: he will finish the Bush administration's project and fundamentally alter this country. The US, as we know it, will be history if he gets his way.


Feh (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:37:11 PM EST

cut the hysteria. I thought Bush would end the country as we know it and he didn't do it fortunately. This is exactly the kind of ninnyism that turns voters off. We should be arguing about habeas w/r/t citizens not detainees. That's how you win the argument. Sorry to say but most voters don't really care about the detainees as wrong as that may be.


The Constitution does not specify (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by FlaDemFem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:04:57 PM EST

citizens, it says "persons". And I know from being an Embassy brat that the Constitution applies to ALL US soil, including Embassies and military bases abroad such as Guantanamo. I have seen Embassy officials explain to foreign government types that they can't turn over so-and-so because under the US Constitution they have certain rights and to turn them over would be a violation of those rights. So if the Constitution applies to foreigners who are voluntarily on US soil, it certainly applies to the detainees at Guantanamo who are not there voluntarily. I don't look for Obama to defend the Constitution, in spite of his statements regarding Guantanamo. He has already stomped all over the "one person, one vote" right, so why bother with the others. I wouldn't trust Obama with protecting the Constitution, so far he hasn't done much of a job of it.


: Obama and the Constitution (5.00 / 0) (#29)
by oneangryslav on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:48:32 PM EST

"He has already stomped all over the 'one person, one vote' right?!?"
Are you being willfully ignorant here, or do you really not understand the role of political parties and the link between them and civil society?
"I wouldn't trust Obama with protecting the Constitution, so far he hasn't done much of a job of it."
I could fairly be characterized as a single-issue (restoration of the Constitution) voter and this is the primary reason I supported Obama over Clinton. Would you mind being more specific about how exactly Obama's approach to the Constitution frightens you?
Go back to the 1990s, and you'll see that the Clinton administration's approach to the subpoena power of Congress was a harbinger of the Bush administration's intransigence with respect to that whole pesky "separation of powers" thingamajig.

: Oh (none / 0) (#14)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:13:52 PM EST

I basically agree with what you are saying. I'm just talking the political ramifications. The GOP has made this about "detainees" and Pelosi and Co. are too afraid to make the argument you are making therefore some argument from Obama, as unlikely as it probably is, will pretty much fall on deaf ears simply because the GOP is able to keep the conversation on "detainees" and not move past that.

In this economy? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:13:19 PM EST

Sorry to say but most voters don't really care about the detainees as wrong as that may be.

It's a non-issue that the current administration can play like a violin if it wants to.

And the inexperienced Obama has no good answers for either...

so far.


What does (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:17:11 PM EST

he have a good answer to? It seems that everytime he goes up against McCain, he gets smacked upside the head and skulks off to whine. I thought people were serious about having a "fighting dem" Oh, stupid me.


: Well, (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:23:36 PM EST

it's early yet.
For some reason, I see Obama cramming for a final exam.
It doesn't make me happy.

What's funny (none / 0) (#57)
by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:00:35 AM EST

about you guys is that you pick and choose when being righteous is good and when it's bad. When Obama stands up on contentious issues you get all realpolitik. When Obama avoids a contentious issue, he "proves" that he is a closet Barry Goldwater.

I'm pretty sure that Obama has some good answers when it comes to human rights. Then again, I actually know his views on human rights.


can you please (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:14:28 AM EST

state your opinion or disagreement without personally insulting commenters, individually or collectively, at this site? If you can't, you'll have to go elsewhere.

I'm getting tired of your continuous "you guys" schtick. Every commenter here is an individual with their own views. In other words, drop the personal from your comments please.


Let's be consistent (none / 0) (#62)
by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:34:34 AM EST

What would you like me to do as a response? You don't want specific critisms to individuals. You don't want the use of more vague plural references.

Should I refer to the people I am talking about as HilBots or Clintonistas? I'm not trying to be disrespectful but let's keep the things consistent.

You can keep treating me like I am the opposition but I am very much not the opposition.

On a different note entirely, did you see Lara Logan tonight on the Daily Show? Wow, it was surreal. I have never seen John Stewart be incapable of giving a defusing joke in a tense situation.


: Heh (none / 0) (#70)
by Steve M on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:04:44 AM EST

The thing is, you're criticizing the unnamed members of an amorphous group for "collective hypocrisy." Because SOME people criticize Obama in a certain way, and OTHER people criticize Obama in the opposite way, therefore "you guys" are all a bunch of hypocrites! It's a pretty silly game.

Actually.... (none / 0) (#39)
by Alec82 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:21:39 PM EST

...President Bush has come remarkably close to doing just that. The extreme right has four members on the nation's highest court. We are more unpopular abroad now than ever. We're dumping money into the black hole that is Iraq. Our addiction to oil is putting a massive strain on our economy.

The Republican Party is absolutely insane, to its core. It has truly modeled itself on something resembling an American version of fascism. He may refer to himself as a "maverick" with a lot of hot air "straight talk," but his policies are firmly with Bush.

So...having looked at the last eight years, and the damage done, I'm beginning to understand: he is a firm ideologue but he wants to be liked. The primary is over, the GE is on, and McCain is running as a conservative Republican. That's it. You can choose to disbelieve it, but you're just putting your head in the sand if you do.


Why is Obama seeking Unity with them then? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:33:46 PM EST

He has done more to ingratiate himself to Republicans and the hard right than reach out to his fellow Dems and to loyal Dem activists, donors and voters.

Praising Reagan but trashing the two-term Clinton presidency and blurring it with Bush will be self-defeating.

This is inexcusable. Obama's biggest Dem booster, Donna "Neutral" Brazile shouldn't be out there like this:

Some are buzzing about Chuck Hagel, a strong critic of Bush and the war, for the Democratic ticket. A bold idea or political fantasy? [...]
Now, some Democrats want Obama to look outside the proverbial box for a running mate, courting the independent voters Bloomberg would have sought. "He was not the candidate of the Democratic establishment although he's courting the establishment now," Democratic strategist Donna Brazile told Salon. "This is an opportunity to go outside the traditional walls of looking for some kind of geographic or political balance [in a running mate]. The country's in such a mood now, it's in a pickle almost," she added, referring to the possible appeal of the national unity ticket.
(And Obama's veep is ... a Republican? By Mike Madden, Salon, 06/17/2008)

apples and oranges (none / 0) (#58)
by Artoo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:03:23 AM EST

Voters who call themselves Republican are not the same as the Republican Party bosses. I don't think Obama's trying to convince Karl Rove.


: He's appealing to (none / 0) (#63)
by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:44:43 AM EST

Republican voters by praising Republican leaders. To use your analogy, he's appealing to oranges by praising apples. Praising Republican leaders is not what a true Democratic leader should be doing, especially when he's trashing certain Democratic leaders and voters at the same time. And no real progressive should EVER praise Reagan's foreign policy the way that Obama has.

Selective outrage (none / 0) (#59)
by flyerhawk on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:06:53 AM EST

It's amazing how you guys cling to a single comment, made 1 time 5 months ago.

You're right. What Obama SHOULD have done is run a campaign praising Bill Clinton. Because the best way to win a political race is by praising the other candidate's arguments.

Donna Brazil may be a complete idiot, I tend to agree. However she is NOT the Obama campaign. She has no official role. So how bout we stop conflating the two. And before you even try to conflate them, let's remember there are a legion of Clinton supporters that could be called out to task as well. Lanny Davis, Terry McAulliffe, Geraldine Ferraro, and Robert Johnson come to mind.


Lawyers find me terrifying (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:50:51 PM EST

Especially academic lawyers.


Not as scary? (none / 0) (#54)
by tribe643 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:39:34 PM EST

He wants to do away with habeus corpus, waterboard prisoners, make Bush's tax cuts permanent, allow offshore oil drilling, keep us in Iraq for decades, likely attack Iran, try to privatize Social Security, kill any hope for universal health care, nominate at least one Supreme Court Justice that'll overturn Roe v. Wade.

Seriously, are you kidding us with the whole "not as scary" comment?


: Let's see (none / 0) (#69)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:31:38 AM EST

Obama wants to keep us in Iraq too. He's backing off his previous statements. Obama can't decide whether Iran is a threat or not. Obama sees cutting checks as a solution to every problem just like McCain. Obama doesn't have much of a record on civil liberties. He'll throw civil libertarians under the bus if it helps himself. Obama supports social security privatization. His plan will open up that conversation. Obama doesn't support UHC and has already killed that himself. The SCOTUS is already done. A good challenge will overturn Roe v. Wade. Since Obama failed to show any leadership w/r/t Roberts I really don't think that argument is valid. The problem with Obama is that he constantly contradicts himself and what he says about an issue depends on who he's speaking to.

Wheelhouse! (3.00 / 2) (#1)
by QuakerInABasement on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:12:17 PM EST

McCain wants to take on Obama on constitutional law? Talk about putting one in his wheelhouse!

Obama's speechifying won't wash here (2.33 / 3) (#27)
by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:44:25 PM EST

Giuliani's irrelevant, and in any case this isn't an essay contest or coffee house debate on Constitutional Law.

When Obama could have actually done something about this in the Senate last year, he was AWOL. He made a statement opposing the nomination of AG Mukasaey (and cited the treatment of detainees as a factor).

However, he skipped the vote on Mukasey -- too boring, I guess -- and Mukasey was confirmed.

McCain also skipped the vote, but the GOP will hurl this back at Obama as an example of his inexperence and flip flopping on an issue that allegedly mattered to him.

Bush and Mukasey are "evaluating" the decision and whether to ask for new legislation. The Pentagon will continue with military trials.

Sens. Dodd and Clinton also skipped the vote, but as the Presumptive Dem Candidate it's Obama who will have some splainin to do.


Rootenbaga (none / 0) (#55)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:04:28 PM EST

who replied to this post has previously been banned under other screen names. His account and comments are now gone.


: Jeralyn (or other TL front pagers) if the ... (none / 0) (#61)
by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:34:02 AM EST

... ramifications of Military Trials as an end run on detainee habeas are within any of your relative areas of interest -- speaking only for myself :-) -- I'd be interested know more about their impact.
The designation of "detainee" as opposed to POW intentionally put them outside the protections of the Geneva Convention and international laws and treaties and it's been a longtime issue for int'l groups like AI and HRW.
The fact that military trials are conducted by the Pentagon SHOULD mean that detainees are for all intents and purposes POWs, and no amount of semantic presto-bango undoes the detainees' right to recourse and fairness in civilian or military court.
In another area, the constitution doesn't permit wilfull abandonment of existing treaties the way Bush has unilaterally done, and Geneva is a big one among several he has shredded that should be outside his self-endowed powers.

Standard GOoPerz attack tack. (none / 0) (#31)
by wurman on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:50:05 PM EST

The playbook on this one is for the rethuglican candidate to run against the US Supreme Court, a fairly easy target. We've seen all of the right wing themes for decades--activist judges, judge-made law, words not found in the Constitution, blah-blah, yadda-yadda.

Sen. Obama should go back in history to the Pres. Truman answer: the Court has ruled, it's my job to enforce the law. How 'bout Pres. Eisenhower on school integration: the Court has ruled so explain it to the Nat'l Guard, governor. Or Lyndon Johnson on Miranda: it's the law so he created the Legal Services Corporation.

Of course, the Obama campaign took the bait & will now actually piddle away energy on an utterly false premise that Sen. McCain will use to solidify his base & attract a few independents who actually approve of torture for Islamofascist terrrrrrists.

McCain vs the Democrats in Congress (none / 0) (#52)
by Prabhata on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:00:45 PM EST

McCain knows that the Democrats have helped Bush's policies. For McCain is a win win position.

Heh (none / 0) (#71)
by Steve M on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:06:16 AM EST

Richard Clarke vs. Rudy Giuliani is what I call a massive mismatch of surrogates.